Sunday, November 17, 2013

The Ongoing Erasure of Europe

In
"The
Regulator's Cucumber Syndrome" I discussed how the EU is obsessed with
controlling the European's material existence. In this column the subject is how
the EU is planning to control his spiritual existence.

The
Gates
of Vienna published a startling, translated column by German attorney Michael Schneider
about an Organization of Islamic Conferences-approved (OIC)
"framework" sponsored by the European Parliament, "which seems
likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a
draconian new form of politically correct 'tolerance' and impose it on European
citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the
authority to enforce it."

Anyone who speaks and writes
about the abrogation of freedom in Europe is accused of being a pathological
conspiracy theorist. So it is advisable to be a little more specific, and name
names.

The abrogation of freedom in
Europe is not occurring naturally, but according to the planning of educated
elites, who have been trained to replace civic freedoms — especially those of
expression, of the press and of the airwaves — with ideological coercion, and
thus smash civil society into microscopic shards, like valuable, defenseless
porcelain.

Schneider
writes that one of the chief culprits behind this legislation is a Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor
emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public
law and international law in Heidelberg.

This honorable person is also in
a dubious think tank, “The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation”
about which one may find relevant information on the homepage of the president
of “The European Jewish Congress” (EJC), Viacheslav Moshe Kantor. Among other
things are those documents which describe the political intentions of the think
tank.

The
subject document closes with a reference to that think tank:

This text was prepared – under
the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation – by a Group
of Experts composed of Yoram Dinstein (Chair), Ugo Genesio, Rein Mȕllerson,
Daniel Thȕrer and Rȕdiger Wolfrum.

The
Three Expert Horsemen of the European Apocalypse? Surely. Throughout his essay,
Schneider repeatedly refers to Wolfrum as "Wolfrum in Sheep's
Clothing." And when you read the European Framework (in English) yourself,
you will see that his sardonic contempt for the man is fully justified.

Of
particular interest are paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) under Section 1:
Definitions:

(a)
"Group" means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots,
ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linquisitc links, gender
identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar
nature.

(c)
"Hate crimes" means: any criminal act however defined, whether
committed against persons or property, where the victims or targets are
selected because of their real or perceived connection with – or support or
membership of – a group as defined in paragraph (a).

(d)
"Tolerance" means: respect for and acceptance of the expression,
preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group as defined in
paragraph (a). The definition is without prejudice to the principle of
coexistence of diverse groups within a single society.

Muslims,
of course, would not be expected to abide by these rules. They can behead a
British soldier in broad daylight in London and cite chapter and verse from the
Koran, attack Jews in Malmo, rape as
many Norwegian women as they like, and invade an auditorium and shout down any
speaker who criticizes Islam, yet one may not take umbrage at their
"religious affiliation" or ethnicitywithout risking the charge of having committed a "hate crime"
and being "intolerant."

Muslims,
however, can froth at the mouth in hatred and commit atrocious crimes, yet not
be charged with "hate crimes." They can publicly demonstrate carrying
signs that read "Freedom of Speech Go to Hell," "Islam Will
Dominate," and "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" with impunity,
yet anyone who appeared in public carrying a sign that read "Sharia Go to
Hell" or "Islam is Barbarism" would soon be handcuffed by the
police and led away to be charged with a "hate crime" and with
"inciting violence."

Muslims
are permitted to hate and express their intolerance. You, the non-Muslim, are
not. "Respect, tolerate, and accept" the conundrum.

Schneider
parses prominent sections of the European Framework law and explicates their
meanings vis-à-vis EU-Speak. For example:

The basic consideration[s] of the
document as read are attractive and allow no suspicion to arise – that is if
you do not know what EU political-speak means – for instance, "human
diversity" standing for the systematic destruction of the autochthonic
population and its traditional canon of values. Whereas respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity
and the inherent right of every person to be different, etc. [Emphasis in bold is Schneider's]

All possible groups are supposed
to be protected by this concept of tolerance — just not the majority
population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost
of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better
and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide
concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the
society — divide et impera:

In
short – and because the chief beneficiary of this legislation will be Muslims –
this means that the Muslim minority will be raised in status to that of the
dominant Western culture. By effectively divorcing Muslims from secular Western
society, and giving them a special, protected status, all the Dark Age
practices inherent in Islam, including Sharia law, will be bestowed the same
legal and moral status as the culture of the majority of non-Muslim Westerners.

However,
the secular majority, in the name of "diversity," may not impose its
values and ethics on the Muslim "minority" (that would be viewed as
"oppression"), but the Muslim "minority" may chip away at
the values and ethics of the majority in the name of "tolerance,"
until they disappear like the Titanic and slip beneath the waves of history.

The
goals of Islamic "cultural" jihad have been iterated repeatedly,
among which are the dissolution of Western civilization. The
Muslim Brotherhood's strategy is clearly stated in an American court
document that outlines how Islam will conquer the U.S. (and presumably Canada).
That strategy can be seen at work in Europe, as well.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist
Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must
understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating
and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Greece
has gotten a head-start on the process. Atlas Shrugs reports that the Greek
Supreme Court has held Sharia law superior to Greek secular or civil law.

The last will and testament of a
Muslim man, which was prepared according to Greek civil law, has been annulled
in the Greek Supreme Court because it isnot compliant with sharia law.

Demeter Simeonidou, who was
Muslim and lived in Thrace, wanted to leave all his assets to his wife. He
prepared his will with this in mind under Greek law. But the will was
challenged by Mr Simoenidou's sister who claimed that under Islamic law of
succession, a Muslim does not have the right to make a public will and his
assets must be distributed in accordance with sharia.

Simoenidou's
sister is "different" because she believes in Sharia law. Her belief
must be "respected," and to not respect it would be an insult and a
denial of her "difference" and to rob her of her "diverse"
status. To honor her late brother's will would by implication mean a derogation
and defaming of Islamic law.

Schneider
next turns to the notion of "group libel" (Section D, Definitions,
[b]):

…defamatory
comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) –
or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, insulting the group,
holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

Schneider
remarks:

Under such a totalitarian regime
as planned here, Mohammed cartoons are just as unthinkable as are objective,
scientific observations on any group having to do with its intelligence, its
other genetic endowments, its behavior (unless it is described unreservedly
positively) for instance, cumulatively occurring deviant or criminal behavior,
etc. Even someone who reports that a group of sixty took part in the attack on
a German police officer, and none of them was an ethnic German, can thus become
a serious criminal. Warning: the persecution of the police officer is not the
crime, but the politically incorrect report on it.

Sixty
Muslims attacking the (presumably non-Muslim) German police officer would not
be deemed a crime under the compromised German criminal code – that's just a
"minority" protesting their victimhood by the "system" –
but identifying the attackers as Muslim would be deemed a crime. Six Muslims
gang-raping a non-Muslim woman or girl would not be judged a crime – that's
just Muslims observing their religion, whose tenets may not be judged or held
up in measure with secular law – but identifying the rapists as Muslim would be
a crime.

Six
ethnic Germans gang-raping an ethnic German woman or girl, however, is a crime
that would fall under German secular law. But guess who would get the harshest
sentencing under this schizophrenic code, and who would be left off with a slap
on the wrist, even should a court dare such a rebuke?

Muslims
may commit violence – Mohammad orders them to, it's in the Koran, that's something that can't be evaluated or judged – but a
reporter who flouts the law of political correctness and identifies criminals
as Muslims, would be found guilty of "inciting" violence or hatred or
of intolerance or of insulting or defaming Islam and Muslims by having simply
reported facts. But I don’t think
very many German or European reporters would face such a charge, once a nation
adopted the European Framework legislation, because no newspaper or broadcast organization
would ever hire them. The ones who might have would have been given pink slips.

In
a spurt of thoroughness, lest anyone think he could critique the actions of
Muslims in the past without risk of
recrimination, there is this explanatory note:

It must be understood that the
"group libel" may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a
different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the
State).

Scholarly
books on the pitfalls of Islam? Out of the question! TV specials on the bloody
history of Islam from the 7th century on? Forget it! The history of
Islamic slavery over the centuries, covering the deaths of millions of African blacks
at the hands of Muslim slave traders to the kidnapping of approximately 1.5
million Europeans to die in servitude in North Africa or populate Muslim
harems? Not a chance! Try and find a publisher. So what if the raiders of
European coastal towns as far north as Iceland were pirates? They were Muslims,
and their reputations are protected against "group libel." Recounting
their actions would reflect "negatively" on the existing group, and
that will not be allowed.

Next,
Schneider highlights the consequences of creating a culture that is no longer
Western but which has multiple personalities.

To appease the critics, the
unavoidable effect of the plan — splitting and ultimately destroying societies
through the disproportionate demands of minorities who are impossible or
difficult or unwilling to integrate — is concealed in an implausible formula: Promote
tolerance within society without weakening the common bonds tying together a
single society.

Meaning
that, hypothetically, German culture would simply be one of many
"cultures" inhabiting the same nation, in the way of a placid mosaic,
abiding peaceably with Islamic and other "cultures." Either Wolfrum
and his colleagues are either ignorant of the fact, or choose not to mention
it, but Islam "isn't in" Germany or any other European nation or in
the U.S. to exist peacefully with non-Muslims, but to dominate, and that is
what we have been witnessing in Europe for at least the last two decades. Muslims
have been stating that intention from the beginning of their mass immigrations.

Schneider
is certain that Wolfrum especially knows what he is doing.

As a proven legal thinker, he is
not doing this by mistake but with malice aforethought and out of deepest
conviction.

Schneider
discusses how national and local governments would be expected to establish
their own "special administrative units" that would police speech. He
quotes from "Section 4: Limitations (f)":

Freedom must not be used to
defame other groups.

Tolerance is a two-way street.
Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society
at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other
members of their own group.

Absent
in this incredible document is any mention of individuals or individual
right, except incidentally in the preface. All rights, privileges and
protections are calibrated to groups, to collectives. The string of "Whereas's" in the beginning of the
European Framework contains the basic premises of everything that follows and
telegraphs the Framework's goals. For example,

Whereas the concept of tolerance is the opposite of any
form of unlawful discrimination….

Who
is to decide what is "unlawful discrimination"? A special
administrative unit.

Whereas tolerance has a vital role in
enabling successful coexistence of diverse groups within a single national
society….[s]uch coexistence enriches and strengthens the fabric of the national
society [and] should not affect the basic identity of that society or its
shared values, history, aspirations and goals.

Good
luck with that, because there is a catch.

Whereas integration within a single
national society does not mean
assimilation….

Whereas coexistence and cooperation
within a democratic society require that individuals and groups make mutual
concessions to each other….

Meaning
that assimilation by Muslims into the larger Western society would not be
imperative and wouldn't be a concession, but accommodation verging on
assimilation by Westerners into Islamic culture would be imperative as a
suicidal gesture of "tolerance" and "coexistence," which would
be short-lived.

All
in all, the whole European Framework document is deliberately calculated to
produce a race reminiscent of the “pod people” from the film The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, with
particular emphasis on transforming indigenous Europeans into obedient,
unquestioning clones of each other, “tolerant” to the point of self-extinction
and complicit in the destruction of European culture – that is, of the culture
that once promoted freedom, freedom of speech, and their identities as
Westerners.

After
reading the entirety of this heinous document, I couldn't help but picture
Wolfrum the co-author as the face on the screen of the classic Apple ad of 1984 that
debuted the personal computer age, a disembodied face commanding adherence to a
"garden
of pure ideology…free from the pests of any contradictory true
thoughts."

But
where is the European athlete who will champion freedom of speech and hurl a
hammer at the screen? Are Europeans nothing but "Ewes in Wolf's
Clothing"? Well, no. There's Geert Wilders, Michael
Stürzenberger, Elisabeth
Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Lars
Hedegaard, to name but a handful of Europeans ready to stake their all for
freedom of speech and sound the alarm about the Islamic takeover of their
continent. Their thoughts state the
truth, yet they have been persecuted, prosecuted, and thrown to the wolves of
Islam.

The
same may be said about Michael Schneider, who also warns that that the alliance
of the EU and Islam, if not exposed and stopped, will lead to the ultimate
erasure of Europe by the hands of believers and the likes of Rüdiger Wolfrum and their dhimmified
ilk.

7 comments:

Establish a NationalTolerance Monitoring Commissionas an independent body composed of eminent persons from outsidethe civil service vested with the authority to promote tolerance.

I see that denying the holocaust should be forbidden, but no mention of denying the (much larger) Ukranian famine created by Stalin. All holocausts aren't created equal. Denying the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Moslems isn't a crime either.

Unfortunately most Objectivists won't discuss this because it conflicts with their pet doctrine of "open immigration."

The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights. Fortunately for those who love and want to preserve American culture, the principle of individual rights is the basic principle of that culture; respect for that principle is an essential characteristic of a true American; and foreigners who immigrate to America, for the most part, embody that characteristic.

The “We have a right to our culture” argument against immigration is at worst unspeakably evil and at best an argument for open immigration.

For someone like Biddle, the desire of a native Dane or an Israeli Jew to prevent his country from becoming Islamic is more or less equivalent to Nazism.

The very first paragraph in the Mr Parille's citation reads: "The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights." I do not see how Mr Parille is equating that with Nazism.

"Open immigration" becomes an argument based on floating abstractions when its proponents ignore the fact that admitting "individuals" whose stated aim -- as expressed by the Muslim Brotherhood -- is to take over the country and substitute religion-based totalitarianism for our constitutional republic. Even more than preserving a "culture", citizens have a right to oppose the occupation of their nation by a hostile force seeking to negate their rights. Such is the case with any Muslim immigrants who refuse to renounce the goals of jihad.